Standing Committee G

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 12 - Disposal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: May I warmly welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Forth, and say what a particular privilege it is to serve under your illustrious chairmanship?
Clause 12 deals with disposal. I was slightly concerned and surprised to hear at the end of Tuesday's sitting that not only has the Minister accepted that there is no definition of ''abandoned cars'', which I had worked out for myself, but that there is no definition of ''fit for disposal''. There is, therefore, potential for confusion in implementing the clause. 
Subsection (2) means that the provision applies 
''in the case of a vehicle, which in the opinion of the authority is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed''. 
Will the Minister specify how authorities might have a different opinion of what condition that ought to be? Does he not find it regrettable that there may be wide variations across the country in interpreting that phrase? We certainly find that disappointing. 
Some concern has been expressed by farmers, particularly through the National Farmers Union, about how disposal will be treated in urban and rural areas. In their view, subsection (2) focuses on vehicles to be destroyed after their removal from roads. Will the Minister address the particular case of disposal of vehicles in the countryside? Is the presumption that the vehicle has been placed on the land wilfully, and is therefore subject to disposal by its owner, who may not own the land? What precautions must the relevant authority take? 
I have studied the clause carefully, and I cannot see anything relating to appeals, but it may be that my reading is not sufficiently accurate. Will the Minister guide the Committee as to what possibility there is to appeal? If an appeal is to be made to a magistrates court, how long will it take for it to be dealt with? 
Subsection (4) covers the definition of ''licence''. How does the Minister expect that to be interpreted? In relation to clause 11, he said that a vehicle would be taken away. What means of disposal are available under section 4(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978? For the benefit of landowners and farmers, will he confirm that the local authority will be charged the cost of a vehicle's removal, disposal and  destruction, and not those who may be innocent parties? Will he assure us that the Bill will be uniformly applied across the country, that those living in the countryside, in particular in remote areas, will be considered, and that there is a right of appeal?

Alun Michael: I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Forth. I know that we have to be disciplined with you in the Chair. No doubt we will be called on to be both interesting and proper, so I am sure that it will be an interesting sitting.
The hon. Lady raised a number of interesting points. We could spend a great deal of time on some of them, but in general they are not a problem because they require the application of experience and common sense to a set of circumstances. That is what local authorities and the police do, while keeping at the back of their minds the interpretation that the courts would place on their actions. Similarly, the courts deal with these issues in a common-sense way. 
If things are too tightly drawn, there is always a danger of ending up with a definition that cannot be applied sensibly. The phrase that has been used on a number of occasions is ''recognising an elephant on the doorstep.'' One knows that it is not a cow or pig, but defining an elephant in precise terms is a little more difficult, at least in legal language. The application of common sense leads to a practice that is well understood by all. 
I am not necessarily looking for everything to be applied uniformly. I want legislation that enables local authorities to tackle real problems sensibly and appropriately. They will do that sensibly by recognising people's expectations and what the law requires them to do, and appropriately because circumstances vary. It is not necessary to provide a definition of ''fit for destruction'' because there is no evidence that that is a major problem. There is already a requirement for actions to be taken when a vehicle is abandoned and no longer fit for use. 
Clause 17 gives the Government the power to issue statutory guidance so that if there were any suggestion that local authorities were running into difficulties as a result of changes in the design of vehicles, for instance, they could be dealt with. Clause 12 deals with disposal after the car has been removed under clause 11. We have already discussed the removal from all types of land, so we have covered what happens in relation to the abandonment of a vehicle. 
There is no appeals system. There can be compensation for unnecessary destruction. If a car is sold or disposed of and a sum is received for that, it would come into the equation. There are also ways of dealing with a local authority if it exceeded its power. There was no evidence in any of our discussions with local authorities, the police and interested organisations that the problems were anything other than theoretical. In practice, it is clear that people understand the situation. 
By checking the vehicle register, the local authority should be able to ascertain whether the vehicle is abandoned. Vehicles with a tax disc and a registered keeper are not normally abandoned, but there are  occasionally circumstances in which that is the case. Under clause 11, if the vehicle is removed, the vehicle keeper will be given sufficient notice to come and collect it. It is then in their hands to take such action as they want to avoid its disposal or destruction. The clause ensures that the local authority can take appropriate action in all circumstances. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Lady. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is the opportunity for the Minister to tell the Committee what form the guidance will take. As he said, the points that I raised on clause 12 were pertinent and could be discussed for some time, but the Committee is tightly timetabled. I did not hear what he said about appeals. Will there be scope for them?

Alun Michael: I am happy to repeat what I said; it was very short. There is not an appeal system.

Anne McIntosh: That makes the guidance even more appropriate. I understand that the Environment Act 1995 sets out clearly the appeals procedure against remediation notices, that the right of appeal will exist and that an appeal would be to a magistrates court. Can the Minister confirm whether that legislation still exists, or is he saying that clause 13 will usurp it and there will be no scope for appeals at all?
It has been put to me firmly that landowners and particularly the NFU will want to be consulted before the guidance is drafted and issued. I imagine that a raft of other organisations, such as utility companies—perhaps not the best example—could be affected by the provision on abandoned vehicles. Will the Minister look favourably on the NFU's specific request? Which organisations will be consulted? Presumably, motoring organisations, such as the AA, the RAC and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd., will want to be consulted and that that will happen. 
Such organisations would like the guidance to cover a situation in which an abandoned vehicle, as defined by the guidance notes on clause 13, has a current tax disc and a registration plate and is therefore road legal. Will sufficient time be allocated to tracing the vehicle owner? The Minister alluded to the relevant clause and said that the period was seven days, but will the guidance notes allow for discretion? In relation to other provisions in this part, he confirmed that all the powers and duties are discretionary. Will the guidance say that the powers are discretionary? If so, that raises the question of what purpose the Bill serves. 
All local authorities are extremely alarmed—this has been expressed through the Local Government Association in particular—that the costs of removal will be extremely high and possibly disproportionate,  and that is on top of the other duties that authorities are being asked to perform. Will the guidance notes make it clear to what extent this provision should be a priority as opposed to other rights and duties and the additional responsibilities that the Government have imposed on authorities over the past seven and a half years? 
Much will depend on the guidance and what precautions the Minister imagines it will provide to ensure that there is uniform application throughout the country. If the provisions of part 2 are dealt with in a widely disparate way, that will negate any beneficial aspects. It would therefore help to have the confirmation that I requested. Who will be consulted? Are the Government minded to consult landowners and, in particular, the NFU?

Alun Michael: Let me spell out where we are. Clause 13 obliges local authorities to have regard to guidance given by the appropriate person when exercising their functions in relation to the removal and disposal of vehicles under the 1978 Act. We are dealing here only with the removal and disposal of vehicles. The ''appropriate person'' in this case is the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
The type of the regime that the hon. Lady envisages would be extremely bureaucratic, with a massive, detailed guidance on what local authorities should do, almost down to spelling out how they should breathe in and out as they undertake their duties, which would be wholly inappropriate. I remind her that we are dealing with the destruction and disposal of vehicles, which occurs only if no one claims the vehicle within a specific period. That is where the seven days comes in. Who would appeal, therefore? 
It is nonsense to create an unnecessary construct. If there are problems, the clause enables us to issue guidance without having to return to primary legislation. I envisage the guidance being simple and straightforward, addressing only those issues that are known to require it. We discussed the matter with local authorities, motoring organisations and others to ensure that we understood the problems that they face. 
I repeat my understanding of how serious the problem is, and people want it to be dealt with. The hon. Lady referred to the NFU. I spoke to its president some time ago about the Bill, which deals with the problem of abandoned vehicles and the dangers they pose, and with fly-tipping and other difficulties experienced by the farming community. The clause is simple and straightforward.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to differ. The SMMT stated that if an abandoned vehicle has a current licence and registration plate, there should be a presumption that it is legally on the road, therefore not abandoned. The point of clause 12 is that it removes the need to wait until the expiry of the tax disc. It expedites the disposal process. The local authority may dispose of or destroy a vehicle that has a registered keeper.

Alun Michael: I told the hon. Lady that in general when a vehicle is licensed it will have a keeper, who can be traced, so the issues that she is worried about will not arise. However, that is not always the case. The  relative cost and value might mean a cultural change over time. There are no new duties in the provisions. They merely simplify existing provisions at the request of the Local Government Association, based on the experience of those who have to deal with the problems.

Anne McIntosh: We do not want delay, but due process and fair justice. It is important that in cases for which there is no appeals process, no one is disadvantaged. As far as possible, where the evidence and the presumption is that the car is legally on the road, it should not be disposed of prematurely.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Notice of removal

Alun Michael: I hope that a word of explanation about the clause, and about clauses 16 and 17, will help hon. Members, as we have already discussed the issues.
The Bill amends the two Acts that deal with abandoned vehicles—the 1978 Act, which covers the duties and powers of local authorities to deal with abandoned vehicles, and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which covers the powers to the police and others to deal with abandoned and illegally parked vehicles. Clauses 11, 12 and 13 amend the 1978 Act and clauses 15, 16 and 17 repeat the changes made in those clauses and do the same for the 1984 Act. I hope that that explanation helps hon. Members.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps we could debate clause 15 before we move on to clause 16. It is not accurate for the Minister to say that we have already debated those issues. We debated the issues with regard to nuisance cars and abandoned cars. However, we are now dealing with a separate category of illegally parked vehicles. Having three separate categories—nuisance cars, abandoned vehicles and illegally parked vehicles—will lead to a great deal of confusion. It may be that, having had the benefit of scrutinising the Bill, members of the Committee have no problem with understanding it, but it will be very confusing for members of the public. Can the Minister give us an idea of the philosophy behind creating three separate categories rather than one category?
I understand from the Royal National Institute of the Blind that illegally parked cars make life extremely difficult for those who are blind or partially sighted. Where such vehicles obstruct the pavement, blind and partially sighted people may knock into them; they and other pedestrians may be forced into the road to pass them, which can be frightening and daunting and put them into greater danger. I understand the  reasoning relating to illegally parked cars, but I want to know why the Minister has created three separate categories. 
Does the Minister not accept that by creating those three separate categories, his Department and the Government are causing the provisions of part 2 of the Bill to become bureaucratic, burdensome and cumbersome? Moreover, will he confirm that clause 15 does not change the fact that the legislation is discretionary—that it provides only the power to act, but not the duty to do so? What, therefore, is the point of including the clause? If the clause is discretionary, what incentive will there be for local authorities to implement it, particularly if they are already up to the limits of their spending commitments, and subject to a 5 per cent. cap in the financial year 2005-06? 
I invite the Minister to confirm that creating three different categories adds to the confusion and bureaucracy surrounding the Bill and that there is no real incentive to any local authority to implement clause 15 or part 2 of the Bill.

Alun Michael: That was more of a Second Reading speech than one dealing with the provisions of the clause. We have not just picked up previous legislation and looked for where we can insert amendments. We have examined the powers and responsibilities that exist for local authorities under previous legislation, and discussed with them, and with a wide variety of other organisations, the current circumstances and what is necessary to deal with them.
The reason why there are different categories for illegally parked vehicles and abandoned vehicles is answered by the hon. Lady's contribution. It is blindingly obvious that a vehicle that has not been abandoned may be a real pain in the neck for local residents and certainly for blind or disabled people or people pushing a pram on the pavement. It may create all sorts of difficulties. 
What legislation has to do—this is already in existing legislation—is to reflect the realities of the situations that we are trying to tackle. In another outburst of excessive centralism that we are finding familiar from the Opposition Members—when they are not asking for centralisation to be removed, usually in the same sentence—the hon. Lady seems to want us to stipulate precisely what local authorities should do in a variety of circumstances. The whole philosophy behind the clause has been one of partnership. 
When we launched our initial consultation, we did so by saying to local authorities, local people, local organisations, representatives of national organisations and others that we wanted to reflect reality and simplify and clarify powers, rather than create new burdens for local authorities. Local authorities have made it clear that, although they would always welcome greater contribution from central Government, they really want the powers in the Bill to enable them to do their job more effectively and efficiently with the resources available to them. I am tempted to develop that point. The message that came through from the ENCAMS report was that it was not the level of resources and how they were used that  resulted in variations in performance and effectiveness up and down the country. However, I am sure, Mr. Forth, that I would not get too far down that path before being drawn back to the clause in front of us. 
As I said, we have already dealt with a parallel clause, so far as the generalities are concerned. Clause 15 amends the 1984 Act by disapplying the requirement to serve a notice on an occupier where the vehicle is on the road and removing the requirement to serve a 24-hour notice where the vehicle is in such a condition that it is considered fit only for destruction. The word ''road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all those to which the public have access, and will in many cases include private roads running through estates. I hope that we can agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman is so charming, but he is not going to get away with it. He has failed to address any of the questions that I asked him about why we need a category of illegally parked cars. He has reminded me of another issue. In clause 15, the Government are transferring responsibility for removing illegally parked cars from the police to the local authorities. Is his Department going to transfer the resources that currently reside with the police?

Alun Michael: No, we are not.

Anne McIntosh: So can the Minister answer one of the initial questions that I asked back on day one of the Committee's proceedings? Can he confirm that the police will maintain a residual responsibility for removing illegally parked cars?

Alun Michael: This clause does not change the situation in relation to the respective powers of the police and the local authorities.

Eric Forth: Order. I began the Committee in a spirit of generosity because I am new here, but that spirit has now expired. I remind the hon. Lady and the Minister that we are debating clause 15, which is entitled ''Notice of Removal''. That is all that the clause refers to. I invite the Committee to concentrate, laser-like, on that clause so that we can move on.

Anne McIntosh: I am simply trying to press the Minister to confirm that the local authority will not be uniquely responsible for issuing the notice of removal, but will have a shared responsibility with the police. If he can confirm that, it will be helpful. My understanding is that there is confusion surrounding the matter, not least in the Local Government Association, which has requested clarification on the point. If the burden of issuing the notice is to be placed entirely on the local authorities, that is a new development worthy of note.

Alun Michael: What I said in introducing this clause was meant to cover all the points that could possibly be raised. I said that existing legislation on abandoned cars was contained in two Acts, so we had to amend both Acts. The police will retain powers under the 1984  Act; we are not creating new duties and powers. The clause does nothing more than change the requirement for issuing notices.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Disposal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Clause 16 makes similar amendments to those in the 1984 Act. It allows vehicles displaying neither a valid tax disc nor registration plates to be destroyed immediately, and removes the requirement to wait until the expiry of the tax disc in other cases. I seek confirmation that landowners and other bodies will be consulted, where appropriate, on the guidance notes on disposal and that it will not be left entirely to the Secretary of State.

Alun Michael: The clause amends the 1984 Act, in parallel with provisions that we have previously discussed in relation to the 1978 Act, to allow for the immediate disposal of vehicles that do not display a licence or a registration mark. It also removes the requirement to wait for the expiration of a licence before disposal can take place. That is all that the clause does.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Extension of litter offences to all open places

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alun Michael: The clause extends the offence of dropping litter, contained in section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so that it applies to all local land to which the public have access, and to all uncovered land to which the public do not have access, regardless of ownership. That includes land covered by water. So the offence extends to dropping litter into bodies of water, such as rivers or lakes, and coastal areas down to the low water mark. There will continue to be an exemption for people dropping litter on their own land or with the permission of either the owner-occupier or the authority controlling the land. The clause will remove an anomaly that the public have wanted to be removed, and will simplify the work of local authorities and others in relation to litter, which can be a problem in many areas.
The question might be asked: why is this change necessary? The answer is that the current law sends mixed messages. For example, although it is an offence to drop litter on a public footpath, it is not an offence to throw it into a neighbouring garden. We want to  close the loophole, thereby making it an offence to drop litter anywhere and sending a clear message that dropping litter is unacceptable. That message is strongly supported by local authorities, the police, companies affected by litter and the general public.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He pre-empted a question, but it was not the question that I had in mind. My question is not why is the clause needed, but who will enforce this extension of the offence? We support tackling the dropping of litter anywhere in the open air in an area of a principal litter authority, regardless of ownership, as well as in water, such as rivers and lakes. A pond in Rawcliffe overflowed and caused substantial flooding in autumn 2000, and part of the reason for that was litter. Such a scenario would be covered by the provision, which is very welcome.
We want to know who will enforce the extension of the offence and how it will be resourced. Will it be a discretionary power or an obligation on the local authority? Taken together with other clauses, it is a substantial increase in what the Government are asking local authorities to do. 
Proposed new subsection (4B) sets out the definition of the land in respect of which a person may give consent. Does the clause relate exclusively to publicly owned land? What is the position in relation to privately owned land? Is it the Government's intention that different conditions should apply? The clause does not state it but the explanatory notes tell us that there are a number of exceptions to the offences, set out in section 89 of the 1990 Act, which are being amended. I understand that consent may be given only in relation to a watercourse, lake or pond if the same person owns all the surrounding land. 
In the Vale of York, land belonging to different owners surrounds ponds or lakes. On the Thornborough henges, which we hope will be saved as they date from Neolithic times, the land is owned by at least two, if not three, different landowners. After it has been quarried, some of it will become a lake and the land will remain in the hands of those landowners. How will the clause apply in such circumstances?

Nigel Evans: I support the clause. Dropping litter is unnecessary and desecrates the environment. I welcome the action that is being taken, which gives a clear signal that society will not put up with litter. I am delighted that the proposal is being extended to watercourses.
In London, I live near the Limehouse basin, and I never cease to be amazed by what floats past in the river and the canal that lead into the basin. People finish what they are consuming and, because they feel they have no ownership over the packaging, they throw their plastic and glass bottles and fast food containers into the water. That is completely unnecessary. A huge expense is involved in cleaning up the rubbish, which is extremely dangerous to wildlife  in and around the water. I hope the Minister will say how the clause will be enforced, so that what it intends can be delivered. 
I assume that there will be a clear, exact definition of litter. People feeding the ducks throw bread into the brook in front of my home in Ribble Valley. That is clearly not litter and I hope there will be no confusion about it, but the wrapping is a problem, as now and again it is thrown into the brook. 
It is not only youngsters who drop rubbish onto streets and into watercourses. I am amazed that adults, too, seem to have no sense of responsibility. I hope the Minister will say how we can get the message about civic responsibility across to the public. 
Finally, we must all play our part in ensuring that there are more litter bins on streets and in the countryside. Many of the bins can be sponsored by private firms. They seem only too happy to play a socially responsible role. In some areas, there seems to be no litter bins at all. I hope that in trying to promote the clause the Government can do something more proactive to ensure that the public have an opportunity to dispose of their litter. However, in the final instance, if there are no litter bins, the public must take their litter home with them.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman highlights something that is not specific to the clause but underlies a lot of what we are doing in the Bill. We are providing legislation that enables local authorities and others to undertake the enforcement that is necessary when other things fail. He is right to suggest that members of the public must use litter bins responsibly. As he said, where litter bins are not available—sometimes it is not because the local authority has not provided them, but because of security reasons—individuals have to play their part by taking their litter home.
We have a sense of the pubic distaste for the way in which the environment is degraded by petty incidences of people chucking away cigarette packets or sandwich packaging, and of the way in which a place becomes dirtier and feels more abandoned in those circumstances. The Bill therefore strengthens, extends and simplifies what can happen so that local authorities are much less constrained by bureaucracy when they carry out their current powers and duties. We spent quite a lot of time preparing the way for the legislation and consulted the organisations that want to make a difference. 
The hon. Gentleman is also right about how we need to encourage people to behave responsibly. We sponsor ENCAMS specifically because it develops campaigns that can be used by local authorities and voluntary organisations to engage the community. I spent time recently with Thames21, the charity that was encouraged, as part of national initiatives, to look at the Thames. I can endorse the hon. Gentleman's experience. I have done litter picks with young people on the banks of the Taff in Cardiff. Seeing the extraordinary range of detritus and rubbish that is found in the Thames brings home just how much stuff ordinary members of the public dispose of in a way that degrades the environment for the rest of the  population. He rightly raises that point as an underlying theme that runs through much of the Bill. However, we will probably not have time to speak about it at any great length.

Nigel Evans: I asked about a definition of litter. Some people think that as long as it is biodegradable, such as an apple core—

Eric Forth: Order. May I stop the hon. Gentleman there? If he looks at the Bill, he will see that he will have an opportunity to explore that when we debate clause 27.

Alun Michael: Thank you, Mr. Forth. I simply say that I look forward to discussing it when we get to that point.
Ponds and watercourses are not easy to deal with. We spent quite a lot of time during the consultation looking at definitions of streams, still water and so on. We thought it necessary to try to make progress on that without extending the Bill to include entirely new powers or responsibilities for local authorities or others. 
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked how the change will be enforced. There is no change in that regard: as at present, enforcement will primarily be a matter for local authorities, the police and people such as police community support officers. We expect the extended offence to be used mainly to stop litter being thrown on to private land—for example, gardens—from land to which the public have access. Anyone with an area at the front of their house that adjoins the street will know that those who dispose of cans or any other form of litter—I shall not go into the definition of that—frequently chuck them not only in the street, but over a hedge or into a driveway. I am sure that members of the Committee are nodding at this point. 
Such behaviour is clearly antisocial. Whether the litter lands on a drive, on the pavement or in the road depends on the intentions, or lack of them, of the person throwing it, and is often a matter of luck rather than anything else. There has been an anomaly and the provision deals with it by offering clarification. That shows the application of common sense, which is why I look forward to the clause becoming part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have been asked to seek one point of clarification. The clause provides for the extension of litter dropping offences to land to which there is public access. Is it the view and intention of the Minister that that weakens proposals set out in the clean neighbourhoods consultation of July 2004? In the consultation, it appeared that the offences would be extended to all land, without caveat. The Bill, however, appears to exclude land to which the public do not have access, which includes boarded or fenced-off land adjacent to railways that are maintained on behalf of London Underground by, for example, Tube Lines. Clearly, it would be beneficial if that caveat were removed. Will the Minister clarify whether what I have described is the Government's intention and exactly how the Bill will apply in that regard?

Alun Michael: I am happy to confirm that the hon. Lady is wrong. The answer is no.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Litter clearing notices

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 20, page 17, leave out lines 2 to 10.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 20, page 17, line 7, after 'served', insert
', or 56 days if the notice is served under the provisions of subsection (9) below.'. 
No. 54, in clause 20, page 17, line 31, at end insert 
'( ) land to which section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Powers to remove persons attending or preparing for raves) applies;'. 
No. 55, in clause 20, page 17, line 31, at end insert 
'( ) land to which section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land) applies;'.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that a raft of antisocial behaviour is demonstrated by people who attend raves and other organised events illegally, without the permission of the landowner. Does he intend to amend the Bill in that regard? I shall raise several items in connection with that in the clause stand part debate, so at this point I simply request that he looks favourably on the amendment.
I have described cases of antisocial behaviour. I am sure that the Minister's Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Home Office are made aware of antisocial behaviour, damage, litter and so on that follow on from unauthorised and, to all intents and purposes, illegal events. Does he envisage extending clause 20 to cover powers to remove persons attending or preparing for raves at which antisocial behaviour might arise?

Sue Doughty: May I join others in welcoming you, Mr. Forth, and, in advance, welcome your judgments?
Amendment No. 73 is a probing amendment. We are concerned that the period within which somebody needs to act when they have been served with a notice is less than 56 days. There is a problem with absentee landlords. For example, if the owner of an area where an order has been made is overseas, even if the council knows that the owner is abroad, and even if the owner has an agent who might pass the order on to him, he may not receive it for days. He will then have to implement the actions required. 
That is why we suggest a period of 56 days. We are trying to obtain an idea of what is a reasonable turnaround in circumstances in which someone may not have the information as soon as the council would like him to have it. If the problem is extensive and the individual has to get someone in to carry out the  contract, or to make arrangements with the council to do the work if the owner agrees to bear the cost, how would that work if the end of the 28-day period is reached? It might be difficult for an owner to implement the order before the period has elapsed.

Alun Michael: I am tempted to refer to the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Guildford (Sue Doughty) as Scylla and Charybdis, because they tempt me in opposite directions by the amendments that they have tabled.
Amendment No. 28 would remove the requirement to clear an area within 28 days. It will be impossible for local authorities to secure a clean local environment if no time period is specified for the litter clearance. A minimum period of 28 days from the service of the notice must be allowed for the required clearing of the litter in order to give the occupier or owner sufficient time to carry out the action required. Removing that period would make the provision impossible to enforce. It would also remove local authorities' powers to specify the standard to which land must be cleared of litter or refuse. The power to make it clear to people what they have to do was strongly supported in the consultation exercise. I am not at all tempted to support amendment No. 28. 
Amendment No. 73 would increase the period to 56 days. If anyone in the Committee is arithmetically challenged, that is double the period of 28 days. It seems odd to suggest such a long time. That would introduce further delays in cases in which the local environment is already degraded and where clean-up action is required. The 56-day period is a long time for people to have to continue to tolerate a situation when the local authority has concluded that an order is necessary. It is unlikely that an order is made on the first day of the problem, and it is very unlikely that an owner or occupier would come forward during the additional 28 days allowed by the amendment. 
A 28-day period is reasonable. We considered much shorter periods than that during the consultation, but local people who adjoin such pieces of land often wanted that done within seven days, six days, or two days—in fact, they preferably want it done now. Of course, that is not practical. We need a time scale and we think that 28 days is reasonable, effective and generous.

Sue Doughty: I fully support councils having a time scale within which action should be taken. It is right that people should see the problem dealt with and that it does not go on for ever. However, what guidance would the Minister give to someone who belatedly becomes aware of the order and cannot fulfil its requirements because he is away, even though he would intend to take action? The individual could explain to the council that he had been on holiday for three weeks and had just opened his post and seen the order. He might agree that the council is right to serve a notice, but he could argue that he cannot take action in the next week because he has to make arrangements.

Alun Michael: I think that one has to be careful. Subsection (6) says:
 ''A period specified . . . may not be less than 28 days beginning on the day on which the notice is served.'' 
It allows for a longer period to be given in particular circumstances, such as in summer. Local authorities could make that judgment. We have to specify a minimum period that we consider reasonable. 
If someone came forward and said that they are now aware of a situation and will deal with it, most local authorities would respond by saying, ''Let's see if it happens'', and give the person a little leeway. However, local authorities also frequently have the experience of someone coming forward and putting off the evil day by saying that they will deal with the problem, but nothing happens. Such matters are best left to local judgment and the application of common sense, and that is the direction in which we would point local authorities. I repeat that we are not dealing with new issues. Local authorities have much experience of dealing with such circumstances.

Nigel Evans: I seek some clarification. When I have gone around parts of the country canvassing, I have been amazed to see the huge amount of litter that has been deposited—clearly by other people—in people's gardens. I assume that a notice could be served on someone to require them to clear their garden of the refuse even though they did not deposit the rubbish there. Irrespective of whether the required period is 28 or 56 days, if the occupier of the house is, for example, disabled, I assume that the aim is not to prosecute them, but to ensure that the refuse is cleaned up. I hope that, in such cases, local authorities would be asked to show tolerance and understanding and to help with clearing up the refuse.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. That is not the sort of standard that most local authorities apply when they are dealing, for example, with tenant obligations. He is right that the provisions can apply to private gardens. Clearly, there will be a need for guidance, but I intend to ensure that it points local authorities in the direction of experience, best practice and the application of common sense, rather than bureaucracy.
Mr. Evans indicated assent.

Alun Michael: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that approach.
With reference to amendments Nos. 54 and 55, the land referred to in subsection (11) is all land that other bodies have a statutory duty to keep clear of litter. That is not the case with land to which sections 63 and 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 apply. The intention is that all land will be subject either to a statutory duty to keep it clear of litter or to a possible litter clearing order. In other words, we do not want accidentally to leave a gap between the two pieces of legislation. The amendments would create a gap in that coverage. 
I understand the argument that a landowner should not be faced with the cost of clearing land when he is not responsible for the litter. Of course, it is always  preferable that the person responsible for the littering, the deposition or any other damage that has been done should be the person who deals with it, in accordance with the polluter pays principle. However, the same argument applies in other circumstances that would not be covered by the amendment if there is a problem with which it is the landowner's responsibility to deal. 
The best option is to retain the widest possible coverage of litter clearing notices and to ask local authorities to deal sensitively with situations in which the litter is not the fault of the occupier. That would cover the sort of example that the hon. Gentleman gave, in which the individual is not physically capable of dealing with the problem. I am happy that we should include that advice in the guidance. There should be flexibility both in the guidance and by ensuring that we do not leave gaps between different elements of the law in the primary legislation. I hope that, on the basis of my explanations of the damage that the amendments would do, they will not be pursued.

Anne McIntosh: I omitted to say that I used to have an interest in Railtrack, although it is not registered or declarable. I am currently taking part in a placement with Network Rail under an Industry and Parliament Trust scheme.
The purpose of the amendments is to alert the Minister to the fact that, as was made clear to him during consultation, his Bill runs counter to what was achieved under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. It would help if his departmental guidance was to the same effect as the Home Office guidance. After discussions with Network Rail on the 2003 Act, a clause was included in the Home Office guidance stating that if a local authority wished to serve a cleansing notice on Network Rail, they would contact the company to discuss a suitable time frame for removal. 
The Minister will be the first to pay tribute to the substantial sums that Network Rail is paying to clean up litter around tracks. However, to put that in context, the delay to trains would be significant, and that greatly concerns Network Rail. Under the performance regimes contained in its regulated track access agreements, the average cost of delay to a train is £42 a minute. That payment applies to every train that Network Rail delays. Using that average delay cost, if 10 trains are delayed for one hour while litter is cleaned up, it would cost £25,200. If a London terminal station was closed for eight hours and 100 trains were delayed, the cost would be just over £2 million. I urge the Minister to consider the problem on Report, and we will maintain our position.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his explanation about what we will do about absentees and for the short discussion on how to ensure that the requirements are not excessively onerous on somebody who genuinely cannot act within the time scale.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Street litter control notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister consider adding office buildings to the list of types of land to which street litter control notices will apply under sections 93 and 94 of the 1990 Act? Concerns have been raised with us about the cost of clearing street furniture and litter by local authorities and others obliged to do so.
A person commits an offence in relation to street litter control notices only if he fails to comply with an order of the magistrates court. Is the Minister saying that referral to a magistrates court would no longer be required? If there is no application to a magistrates court, will there be any possibility of appealing?

Alun Michael: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure that this is the appropriate time to discuss further extension of the provision. The clause deals specifically with street litter control notices. It extends the application of such notices under sections 93 and 94 of the 1990 Act to cover vehicles, stalls and other moveable structures used for commercial or retail purposes. It has arisen from the experience of local authorities, because previously those provisions applied only to fixed premises and adjacent open land. Obviously it was an anomaly that someone could drive a vehicle on to the street and would not be covered by the provisions. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that the clause clears that up.
The clause removes the requirement for litter authorities to seek a court order. The previous system required a court order, which in turn required compliance with such a notice. It will now immediately be an offence to fail to comply with the requirements in the notice without reasonable excuse. It is clear that that will be welcomed by local authorities because it will greatly streamline their capacity to get on with the job, which is what everyone wants. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - ''Litter''

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2——Producer responsibility for litter caused by discarded chewing gum etc.—
 ''(1) The Secretary of State must consult on producer responsibility measures to— 
(a) discourage litter caused by discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing; and 
(b) provide financial redress to litter authorities for the costs incurred by removal of discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing. 
 (2) The consultation must— 
(a) include such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of litter authorities as he considers appropriate; 
(b) include such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of producers and distributors of chewing gum and other products designed for chewing as he considers appropriate; and 
(c) publish recommendations before 2007. 
 (3) The consultation must consider both voluntary and statutory schemes.'.

Sue Doughty: The new clause recognises the problems of producer responsibility. On Second Reading we heard a great deal about the cost of dealing with chewing gum. Certainly no one intends to put onerous clean-up costs on to local government. We are trying to look at the whole problem of why we are in this situation and how we deal with the onset of the problem rather than the tail end. While we support other aspects of the clause, we have real problems with its provisions in that regard.
On Second Reading, we referred to the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea. We know of the enormous amounts of money that are involved in dealing with chewing gum. Community support officers in the borough issued 175 warnings for litter and council enforcement officers issued 700 fines, but they still have the problem of chewing gum. In 1994, Westminster City council found 300,000 blobs of chewing gum on Oxford street. I hope that it ascertained that by statistical means rather than by sending a man out to count. It has spent a huge amount on dealing with the problem and was involved in a huge clean-up on Oxford street, but several months later it was as bad as ever. 
Chewing gum stains pavements so it is not only a problem while it is there. I had a nasty fall caused by a piece of discarded chewing gum that became attached to my foot. As I thought I was walking forward, my second foot at first failed to leave the ground, then moved very suddenly and the rest of me went straight forward. It ruined a rather nice pair of boots and my dignity and I acquired some rather bad bruises. Chewing gum does not just look ugly and horrible, but causes injuries. 
We also have a problem with the market. The chewing gum market is now worth £258 million a year. That is an estimate from Wrigley's. Chewing gum sales in the last five years have gone up by 33 per cent., so it is a growing problem. I know that there have been discussions with Wrigley's about whether it could do something about introducing biodegradable gum or making gum less sticky, because it is the sheer stickiness that causes the problem. Wrigley's claims  that it cannot do that, although London Liberal Democrats did some research and found out that a more environmentally friendly gum is available which could meet the demand. That sort of thing needs to be worked up because we need to put pressure on the gum manufacturers to go right back to the beginning, not only to how gum is disposed of, but to what happens to it. People just keep throwing gum on the ground.

Nigel Evans: It is registered that I have a retail business that happens to sell chewing gum. We have, sadly, a minute part of that £250 million, or whatever the figure was. I hear what the hon. Lady says, and if more biodegradable chewing gum could be produced, that would do the job that people want. Surely the real responsibility, however, lies with the people who discard gum. There is encouragement on the packet, which says, ''Please put the gum back into the silver foil and dispose of it properly.'' The industry is sending the right message. It is the people who discard gum on the floor who should pay the penalty.

Sue Doughty: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. There are two problems, however. People throw it away and we need to jump on them for doing that. [Interruption.] Well, we need designated officers to jump on them. I fully support measures to deal with that.

Nigel Evans: That will be the subject of another new clause.

Sue Doughty: Not another new clause, as the matter is perfectly adequately covered. However, the problem is the cost. It cost £200 million to remove chewing gum from London Underground's trains and stations. Given the state of our public transport system, that is £200 million of money that could be put to good use on the railways and other transport undertakings.
The problem has been going on for a long time. In 1996, the Conservative Government were asked whether the Department of the Environment was consulting manufacturers about cleaning chewing gum. That was eight years ago. At that stage, the Keep Britain Tidy group, now ENCAMS, considered the opportunities for cleaning gum up. I know that the Minister has spent a lot of time dealing with the subject, so I am telling him something of which he is already aware, but for the record, it is important that we recognise the problem. 
DEFRA set up the chewing gum action group to review what was happening. It decided to find out about people throwing gum on the ground. It is not unreasonable that we must understand the problem before we can solve it. There were five classifications of people who do it. The group said that the idea of chewing gum stuck on your hair, face or shoes is disgusting, but people still throw it away. The selfish say, ''When I have finished with my gum, I don't want it anywhere near me. I just want rid of it.'' In other words, they throw it away rather than wrapping it up and taking it home with them. That is a psychological issue. 
There were some interesting comments on Second Reading about whether the packaging could be designed so that used chewing gum could be put back in. The research said that people were unlikely to carry it to a bin, and I am quite happy to deal with people whom I spot throwing it away. There should be publicity saying that that is wrong. Much more needs to be done, because it is a major problem. We could consider fining chewing gum manufacturers or putting a levy on the product that would go towards the cost of cleaning up. We need more work to be done into how we can get the manufacturers to take account of what people throw away. It is horrible to find it on the ground.

Nigel Evans: It would be unfair to put a tax on chewing gum as the hon. Lady suggests. I dispute her finding that everyone who chews gum drops it on the ground. I am very careful how I dispose of chewing gum, which I use from time to time, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is, too. Why tax people who are not going to break the law just to pay for those who take no responsibility? We should jump on those people, as she said, not on everyone.

Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman has a good point. We have not tabled an amendment on the subject, as we do not necessarily subscribe to that solution, we merely say that such a suggestion could be considered, and we need to look at what can be done about the problem of chewing gum. The hon. Gentleman and I throw the stuff in the bin, carefully wrapped up; there may be a problem with the sample from the statistics taken by the chewing gum action group, which found that sooner or later, everyone throws their gum on the ground. The hon. Gentleman and I may be the exceptions; the problem is widespread.
The purpose of the new clause is to ask the Government to get much tougher with the manufacturers, and to look for appropriate solutions that deal with people who throw chewing gum on the ground. There is a huge problem, which will continue if we do nothing about it, as shown in Westminster, where things got just as bad again soon after the stuff was cleaned up.

Alun Michael: I am glad to have the hon. Lady's endorsement of what DEFRA, ENCAMS and the action group to which she referred are doing. I am grateful to her, too, for promoting DEFRA's fascinating and illuminating research, which gave an insight into people's behaviour. I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who said that  it is people's behaviour that turns the wrapper into litter and its contents into a stain that is enormously difficult to remove.
The first instinct of legislators is to legislate, but that is not always the answer to a problem. The clause is simple and limited; I will refer in a moment to the definition of chewing gum, which will assist in controlling the process of transition from its being in someone's mouth to becoming a stain. 
Chewing gum deposition is an increasing problem, and gum is harder to remove than other types of litter. I have looked at the problem personally and talked to the councillors who are responsible for devising a policy on the cleaning-up process, and to operatives in city centres and local authority officers who have to put the policy into practice. The further one goes into the matter, the clearer it becomes that the problem must be tackled, and that it is a very complex issue, not just because of the technicalities of removing the stains, but in terms of how we get people to behave in a different way. 
In the end, it is a matter of public attitudes although, retailers, manufacturers and the local authorities have a responsibility. I pay tribute to the many local authorities that take the issue seriously and try new methods and technical approaches to deal with the problem, which is what the public want them to do. They object to the stains on the pavements and the other extremely unpleasant aspects of the problem. A member of my family who asked me why we were bothering about this issue came back 24 hours later having completely changed her attitude because her skirt had been damaged by a piece of chewing gum that had been placed under a table. 
The segmentation research is illuminating—more so than some research that consists only of people's opinions or who is for or against things. I shall not repeat the information that the hon. Member for Guildford gave, but she was accurate in what she reported. I found the material difficult to believe at first, because it is difficult to understand that people will talk about their attitude when it is that of the bravado user. However, on the day that we launched the research, I found myself on a radio station that had managed to capture two chewing gum users in the centre of a town, and one was a bravado user. As the conversation went on, he said, ''I'm starting to feel a bit embarrassed about this now'', to which my general response was, ''Good.'' 
The research showed that it will take work to change the attitudes that lead to littering and therefore staining, but attitudes can be changed. That has been shown, for instance, in relation to dog fouling, which we spoke about on Tuesday. The legislation, enforcement, the change in public attitude and the change in behaviour on the part of dog owners are leading progressively to an increasing improvement and a diminution of that unpleasant presence on our streets. I conclude that we have a big mountain to climb to turn things around on chewing gum, but I  believe that we can do so and we certainly can if there is the unanimity of purpose and the wish to see the matter dealt with that I perceive across the Committee. 
The hon. Member for Guildford referred to Wrigley. I have met the managing director, Gharry Eccles, and should be meeting him again shortly to talk about the engagement of that company, which is by far the biggest manufacturer and supplier of chewing gum in this country. The clause is designed to address a narrow problem: current legislation does not carry an explicit definition of litter and refuse, although the courts have considered the definition to be wide. The Government and local authorities generally agree that smoking-related materials and discarded chewing gum already fall within the definition of litter. A number of councils have recently launched well-publicised campaigns to issue fixed penalties to gum droppers, based on the fact that discarded gum is litter. Some, however, argue differently and say that discarded cigarette ends and chewing gum are not litter, and anecdotal evidence suggests that concerns about their legal status may have discouraged some of the more cautious local authorities from taking action against those who discard cigarette ends and gum. We therefore consulted widely on the issue and there was widespread support in the consultation for a provision to put the position in law beyond any doubt. 
Clause 27 provides that clarification, confirming that discarded smoking-related products and chewing gum, including bubble gum and other products designed for chewing, fall within the definition of litter for the purposes of part 4, entitled ''Litter Etc'', of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That will confirm that local authorities have the ability to tackle one of the most serious problems of litter dropping. The responsibility is not new, because the Government and local authorities generally have always taken the view that I have described. The clause simply confirms that that is correct. 
New clause 2 is unnecessary. The Government are already working with the industry and local authorities to address the problem of discarded chewing gum. We expect to see the first results this year, so there is no need to wait until 2007. However, I understand the sentiment behind the drafting of the new clause and I hope that that is a sufficient assurance for the hon. Member for Guildford. 
The hon. Lady referred to the chewing gum action group, which I set up in autumn 2003. Its members represent the interests of the chewing gum industry—including Wrigley—local authorities, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and ENCAMS. The group's remit is to find, through a partnership approach, sustainable solutions to the irresponsible disposal of gum. We have the results of market research conducted by the group, and industry is committed to contributing financially to the measures that the group develops. That will be complemented by work on local campaigning, innovation projects and effective enforcement. 
If the hon. Member for Guildford intends to put down a marker saying that we need to return to the matter in legislation if the partnership measures are not effective, I accept that as being a reasonable and constructive warning. However, at this stage, I hope that the way to go is via the partnership approach and trying to tease out, as we did in the segmentation report, what is going on and what we need to do to change users' behaviour—the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall be grateful if we send the message from the Committee that that approach has strong all-party support. I shall then undertake to take that message not just to the industry but to local authorities and others with whom we work. I shall also pass that message on to ENCAMS, which I am sure will be greatly encouraged, because it has been trying to design campaign material, in the way in which it did on dog fouling with such success, to address the issue. 
I hope that we will be able to go forward from the Committee with the clause, the provisions of which are a small element in the debate, because the proposed new clause has widened our discussion. The clause will clarify the legislation, but it is important to have the support of everyone in the Committee for the initiatives that we are taking to try to tackle, in a partnership approach, the problem of chewing gum.

Anne McIntosh: I hate to break up the cosy partnership that the Minister seeks to establish. However, I shall start in a helpful way by explaining to him where we are coming from. We have not sought at this stage to draft an amendment, but we will table an amendment on Report, if the Minister is not minded to agree with what we propose.
We propose to strike clause 27 from the Bill. I shall elaborate on why I believe that the Minister seeks to impose responsibilities on councils which it is beyond their wildest expectations that they could meet. However, I will say, in a constructive way, that there are three, if not four, ways in which we could proceed as an alternative to clause 27. The Liberal Democrats referred both to a purchase tax and to producer responsibility. Neither the Minister, nor the spokeswoman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Guildford, referred to the other large company in the industry besides Wrigley. That company is Cadbury Schweppes, which produces Hollywood, Trident and Dentyne, and imports chewing gum such as Stimorol.

Alun Michael: May I make it clear that I referred in general to manufacturers and suppliers. However, Wrigley has about 95 per cent. of the product market; that is why I referred specifically to it. Given its segment of the market, it has a responsibility, which I believe that it accepts.

Anne McIntosh: I accept what the Minister says. There is the element of producer responsibility. Cadbury Schweppes and Wrigley both take a responsible position. I chew gum, and I hope that I always dispose of it in a socially responsible and environmentally friendly manner.
With regard to the element of producer responsibility, I pay tribute to the work that Wrigley and Cadbury Schweppes have undertaken, particularly through the investment that they have made and their participation in the chewing gum action group. There is also the element of educating consumers, particularly the young who are perhaps keener to chew gum, including bubble gum. 
There is an element of individual responsibility. The Minister must accept that if each and every one of us cannot desist from dropping all forms of litter, the Bill will have failed in its aims. There is also the option of a purchase tax. As a representative of the low-tax party, I can understand why the representatives of the two other parties would favour a purchase tax, but that would be our least-favoured option.

Sue Doughty: If the hon. Lady had been listening she would know that we are not proposing a purchase tax, but it is an option to consider at some stage and we listed it among a range of other proposals. We are not endorsing such a tax, and I would like that on the record.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that.

Alun Michael: One could get used to misrepresentation of different sorts, but I point out that on Second Reading the Conservative party seemed to think that the answer to the problem of chewing gum was precisely that of producer responsibility.

Anne McIntosh: Yes, but not a purchase tax.

Eric Forth: Order. There is a danger that the discussion is drifting somewhat. I remind the Committee that we are discussing clause 27, which is very narrow and focused, and also the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which refers to producer responsibility. However, I am not sure that we want the discussion to go further than that.

Anne McIntosh: There is another reason why chewing gum should not be described as litter. We have heard of the poop and scoop system to deal with dog poo, but I do not know whether the Committee is familiar with the gum pouch, which retails at £1.35, or the gum ashtray pouch, which motorists can purchase for 95p. There is an alternative way to dispose of gum, to which the Minister may like to allude.
 ''Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities and police community support officers already have the power to issue fixed penalty notices to those who drop chewing gum. The current level of fixed penalty is £50.''—[Official Report, 17 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 1472W.] 
I point out to the Minister that in a debate held in Westminster Hall attended by the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment it was made clear that certain councils, such as Westminster city council, are already applying that penalty.

Alun Michael: I made it clear that the immediate response when this subject was raised in consultation was that extra legislation was not necessary because it is clear that chewing gum is litter and that therefore the provisions of existing legislation apply. Only as a result of some people saying during the consultation that there might be an argument about chewing gum, did we accede to representations and explicitly refer to it in this legislation. It is as simple as that. There is no mystery that what I have said in the past applies under existing legislation because nothing changes as a result of this clause, which explicitly clarifies what is already the case.

Anne McIntosh: My point is that clause 27 is nothing more than discretionary; it does not impose an obligation on councils.

Alun Michael: Of course it does not, because all the clause does is to confirm our, and the vast majority of people's, understanding of what the law is. It merely puts the definition beyond doubt.

Anne McIntosh: The point is that when councils fail to clear litter, no penalty is imposed.

Alun Michael: Local authorities not using their powers is a different matter to the definition of litter. All that the clause deals with is the definition of litter. It is clarifying something that is already very clear in law and removing any doubt—should people feel that there is any doubt whatever. That is all that it does.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister says that that is the purpose. However, I was staggered when, in a further reply to a parliamentary question on 17 November, he confirmed that the chewing gum segmentation study commissioned by the chewing gum action group had cost £60,170. That is an extraordinary amount to spend when all the study did was look at the different ways in which people disposed of chewing gum, without coming up with any conclusions.

Alun Michael: That is not what it did. It looked at people's motivation, their explanations and their description of their own behaviour. If the hon. Lady fails to take the sensible steps that we have taken to understand the problem before trying to tackle it, she will continue doing what she is doing today—tying herself in knots.

Anne McIntosh: With respect, it is the Minister who is tying himself in knots. In his answer on 17 November, he said that the chewing gum action group report
''will assist by informing campaigns to change behaviour.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 1472W.] 
In answer to a question on 16 November, he said: 
 ''We will launch a public awareness campaign in the coming year with the aim of delivering the behavioural change needed to prevent gum being dropped in the first place.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 November 2004: Vol. 426, c. 1243W.] 
Will he confirm that that has happened? As Wrigley and Cadbury Schweppes have said, there will be no change in behaviour whatever without that campaign.

Alun Michael: Yes, absolutely. It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice, but the coming year has so far reached only 20 January; there is a considerable amount of the year to go, but a good deal of work is being done on designing the campaign. She referred to industry's involvement, and the group's work has not necessarily been easy, because the industry side obviously does not want the negatives of its product to be brought out. As was clear on the issue of dog fouling, there is a need for a challenging campaign if we are to see effective change in public behaviour, and that is precisely what we are working on.

Anne McIntosh: I think that it would have been helpful if such things had been in place when the Bill was introduced.
May I turn the Minister's attention to the costs involved? The hon. Member for Guildford elaborated on them, but I want to go into greater detail. Westminster city council has spoken of its concerns and sent a full response to the Minister and his Department. It said that it was particularly concerned that the proposed redefinition of gum and gum staining as litter in relation to section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would place a duty on local authorities to keep streets clean of gum at all times. It was certain that such standards could not be met without a massive and disproportionate increase in street cleansing costs. The Minister said that the clause was not imposing a duty, but simply widening the definition, so can Westminster city council be more relaxed about this?

Alun Michael: I do wish that the hon. Lady would listen to what is said in answer to some of her comments. The clause does not place a new duty on anybody or change the definition; it clarifies the definition to make it clear that it means what local authorities and government generally believed it to mean. It merely puts the matter beyond doubt.

Anne McIntosh: But local authority representatives—not members of the Committee—are the very people whom the Minister is asking to apply the provisions, and, in their view, there are already adequate grounds for defining gum and smoking-related materials dropped on the public highway as litter.

Alun Michael: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady while she is reading word for word contributions that have come to her from lobbying organisations, but will she answer one question for me? Local authorities are issuing fines for dropping chewing gum. Does she consider that illegal? We do not. It is what the law says now. If gum is not litter, there would be no basis for those fines, but as it is litter, there is an existing statutory duty to clear it up. Does the hon. Lady not understand that?

Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman must understand our frustration, expressed and recorded on more than one occasion in this House. We totally accept that councils have those responsibilities, and excellent flagship councils such as Westminster City council are applying the law already. Our frustration is that there are councils throughout England that are not. Bath council springs to mind; it has issued only one notice under a litter order. We believe either that the clause is not necessary because the powers already exist or, if the Minister is imposing a duty, that costs will increase incrementally by £9 million a year for councils that are already implementing existing provisions.
Our record on litter and keeping Britain tidy is second to none, since it was the Conservatives who set up the Keep Britain Tidy campaign. I put it on record, having had discussions with and representations from Wrigley and Cadbury Schweppes, that those companies are fully aware of their producer responsibilities, and look to the Government to come forward with the campaign that they are committed to introducing. Chewing gum can not only help to relieve stress, as I find on occasion, but has some beneficial qualities, particularly for dental health. 
We have had an excellent, wide debate, but the Government must consider a range of responsibilities. To be fair, it is not this House but the producers of chewing gum who are calling for a purchase tax. There is a producer responsibility, but I also recognise individual responsibility. The Minister has gone some distance to say that we are not going to change behaviour, but there is the ''wrap it and bin it'' approach and the gum pouch approach. We believe that this clause is very damaging indeed. We have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrat amendment, but would move to strike the clause from the Bill.

Nigel Evans: I just thought that I would add my two penn'orth and seek some clarification. Clause 27 mentions
''discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products'',
and it is absolutely right that we need to clamp down on that; it is litter, after all. Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of smoking bans in various places is that we see people huddled outside buildings smoking cigarettes or cigars. They do not have a right to discard their finished cigarette ends on the floor outside those buildings. They are on a public highway, so they must take seriously their responsibility to discard cigarette ends and other products connected with their smoking properly. From time to time we see people throwing their cigarette end out of their vehicle while they are driving. People should be clearly told that that is not allowed, and that they will be prosecuted if they are seen doing it. Other times, one sees someone sitting in a vehicle outside a shop, perhaps waiting for someone, discard the entire contents of the ash tray on to the highway. How piggish is that? Quite frankly, it shows no responsibility whatever, so I hope that it will be included as part of the definition of ''like products''. 
I have many years of experience of selling gum, as well as using it myself. Looking at new clause 2, I agree that there has to be some responsibility for the producer to consider how the product is packaged. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York had to say about pouches, which are new to me; we certainly do not sell them, and I suspect that the vast majority of people do not use them either. Certainly, if I am using Wrigley's Juicy Fruit gum or the like, which has foil wrappers, it is easier to discard the gum responsibly. 
Mostly, I hasten to add, I chew gum when I am driving so it is a lot easier, as everything is done in the car and I can clean it up at a later stage. Other gums, such as the Colgate brand, are not wrapped in foil. Stimorol has also been mentioned, and it is not individually wrapped either. That means that it is more difficult to discard the product. If manufacturers cannot come up with some way of wrapping gum individually, maybe they should consider putting pouches at the top of packs for people to wrap the gum in. Not all the gum that is available is individually wrapped, and I understand why that is the case. 
To move on to the wider subject of clause 27, I mentioned apple cores earlier. Could the Minister say something about whether the public have a right to discard biodegradable stuff, or should it be included more clearly in the Bill? People often throw apple cores and the peelings from oranges, tangerines and the like down on the floor. I assume that litter includes wider things such as shopping trolleys, which seem to end up everywhere. I hope that if anyone is caught discarding one of those on the highway, they will be properly prosecuted. It should not be the responsibility of the shop or the store; it is also the responsibility of enforcement agencies to clamp down. 
I hope that the hon. Member for Guildford has tabled new clause 2 to test the Minister on various ways of encouraging the industry to do more. It has a responsibility, after all, but that should finally come down on the user of the product. People buy the product and use it, and they should be responsible for putting it in litter bins either at home or on the street  when they have finished with it. They certainly do not have the right to throw their litter on to the floor. The cost of cleaning it up runs into millions throughout the country, and moreover it is dangerous. It is also unsightly. I hope that the Minister can clarify some of the points that I have raised.

Alun Michael: I look forward to clarifying a number of points, particularly those raised by the hon. Gentleman. He went to the heart of the issue of chewing gum—not the heart of the clause, which is simple and straightforward—and how we deal with a considerable nuisance that the public want to see dealt with.
I perhaps ought to recommend further conversations between the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench representative, since the opportunity arises for him to discover all sorts of new products that can go on to the shelves of his shop following the contribution made by the hon. Member for Vale of York. 
I have in my hand a form of packaging that is designed to deal with cigarette ends without any danger to the user. It is obviously greatly preferable to simply give up, but as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, some people contribute to the disgusting appearance of the outside of some buildings as that is the place where they go to smoke. There is no need for that. If people are going to undertake such activities, it is simple for them to use an article such as the one that I am waving in the air and not to create the disgusting scenes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The clause simply makes it clear and reminds people what the law says. It may also remind the public that if they drop a cigarette end or throw a piece of chewing gum away, they are dropping litter. It is important that that is clear. 
The hon. Gentleman mentioned dropping biodegradable materials and so on. That is littering as well. Clearly, if one drops an apple in a border where it biodegrades quickly, it is less serious than dropping something that is plastic and will be around for a longer period of time. However, it falls within the definition of litter. Nobody has argued about that, so we do not need any clarification. That is why I want to underline the fact that we are not changing the law or putting any new duties on anybody. 
The hon. Member for Vale of York is absolutely and factually wrong in suggesting that there are costs associated with the clause. All that it does is one simple thing—it clarifies the definition of chewing and smoking-related materials as litter, in order to make it clear that authorities can prosecute and issue fixed penalty notices for the dropping of such materials. 
If we are going to prevent the problem, there needs to be either a change in people's behaviour or prosecutions for it. Prosecution does not involve the costs that the hon. Lady mentioned. If she is right that chewing gum relieves stress, I shall be purchasing it by the end of some of her contributions—I say that in the nicest way possible, because I am certainly not going to start smoking again. 
I have made clear what the clause does, which is no more than what I described. There are no costs involved. There is an opportunity to prosecute people and impose fixed penalty notices. That would provide additional finances, which would be beneficial. However, the amount would be nowhere the cost of the end result of the littering, which is staining. The clause does not deal with staining, and it cannot. I hope that that is clear.

Nigel Evans: The Minister also mentioned advertising. Can he say more about the campaign to make people understand that dropping gum is not acceptable? He has talked about social and behavioural changes, which we would prefer, but if they do not happen, people will be prosecuted. Will the campaign concentrate on gum or will it include the other products to which the Bill refers?

Alun Michael: The campaign that we are considering concerns gum. Dealing with the consequences of the littering is difficult, which is why the working party has considered the matter more widely and looked at the underlying causes. There will be a specific campaign. I cannot say more than that now, because we are at the early stages of design, with a lot of discussions about what would be most effective, what would work and what would not, and how a campaign could fit with other forms of advertising. I undertake to write to members of the Committee when I can tell them where we are and how matters are being carried forward.

Nigel Evans: One suggestion is that manufacturers should state on the packaging that dropping gum is an offence punishable by a fine.

Alun Michael: As I have said, we have received a lot of co-operation from the industry. I believe that the group has discussed that idea, although I shall look at its latest recommendations to see whether that suggestion has been considered fully. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether other types of littering would be addressed in a campaign. The answer is yes. We are increasing the amount of money that ENCAMS receives, so that it can do more on littering.
We shall shortly publish the annual report of comparisons of how local authorities deal with a variety of environmental issues, including littering. For the first time we shall have a three-year comparison of whether trends are going up or down.  That will contribute to the exchange of best practice among local authorities. Campaigning on gum is only part of a much bigger picture. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also increasing its work on sustainable communities.

Sue Doughty: I shall make a few brief responses to the Minister's remarks on new clause 2. First, like everyone, I am absolutely delighted with the change in public attitude to dog fouling, but I have to say that when someone is out with their pooch, it is very visible when it is pooping. It is easy to see whose dog is doing it, and local disapprobation goes a long way to changing attitudes. However, if a small amount of gum is flicked onto the pavement, it is very difficult to know who did it, and when and how.
I am very supportive of what the Minister said about the need to understand the problem. I have to say that spending £60,000 on research to find out why people throw gum away seems fairly cheap compared to the clean-up costs. We have to change attitudes. I very much welcome what he says about continuing to work on it, but we will need to see what happens. We cannot have endless discussion groups, focus groups, and warm thoughts and hope that it goes away. We could have projects, with one generation of children learning that it is wrong to throw gum on the ground, but as we have seen with other awareness campaigns, all goes quiet in the next generation. 
I welcome the fact that the Government are talking with Wrigley's about biodegradable and other sorts of gum in order to limit the damage. However, we confirm that we have tabled the new clause as a marker; I think that the House will want to return to the subject if we do not see any results, because what happens now is unacceptable. Given the difficulties of identifying those who throw the stuff away, I hope that the message will get across; but it needs conviction of the mind as well as conviction of those who carry out the act. 
Will the Minister say how long he will let it run before he reviews the effectiveness of the message, and what he has in mind to ensure that not only one generation of people receives it ? We need ongoing awareness.

Alun Michael: We want active engagement. We need to see what can be done in this year's campaign, take stock and then see what can be done in subsequent years. I believe that we have the co-operation of manufacturers and retailers. It was nice and easy in the first instance to engage them, because they hoped that the problem would go away. However, they are now fully engaged. I certainly agree with the warning given by the hon. Member for Guildford that if we are not successful or if that success does not continue, we should return to the matter with further legislation. However, I hope that we shall see progress and success.

Anne McIntosh: I heard what the Minister said about the difference between littering and staining. The difficulty is that chewing gum stains almost immediately it becomes embedded in the pavement—  one person drops it, another person stands on it, and already it has stained the pavement. The regulatory impact assessment states on page 40 that
 ''The measure does not widen the scope of the duty under section 89 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 to keep land free of litter and refuse, to include chewing gum staining.'' 
I do not see how the clause addresses the problem of chewing gum.

Alun Michael: Very simply, littering with chewing gum leads to staining. If we tackle the littering, we have a chance of avoiding the staining. If we do not tackle the littering, the staining will continue to increase. Dealing with the staining once it is there is a different matter, and is nothing to do with the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: That immediately leads me to say that the Government are presumably relying on an environmental officer, perhaps from Westminster city council, or a community police officer to catch  someone in the act of dropping the gum. That would be nigh on impossible in Oxford street because of the volume of people.

Alun Michael: With respect, we have a problem with littering because a lot of it is not spotted, but a lot of it is. The success of litter wardens, for instance, is a lesson from which we have learned. Local authorities are enthusiastic and keen to pursue the policy, and it is popular with the public. Littering with chewing gum is about the act of its being dropped.

Anne McIntosh: I have no argument—

Eric Forth: Order. I remind the Committee that we resume at 2.30 pm in this Room, and that we will be sitting in this Room until the end of our proceedings.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.